NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to start off by saying that, historically, something big happens after a bin Laden tape is aired. My heart goes out to the families of those that will be killed by al-Qaeda in the coming days.
Anyhow, this is by far bin Laden's most interesting tape. He is following the patterns of Yasser Arafat and, most recently, Muqtada al-Sadr. bin Laden, as we know, is hidding somewhere in the world, al-Qaeda has little in the way of a central leadership, and he basically knows that he can't run it effectively. He is close to defeat, even if he is never found.
So he is following a classic pattern: explaining what happened and why. He said that the Sept. 11 attacks were largely in response to Israel's invasion of Lebannon, and several other events. He tells the American people that he is willing to offer a truce with us. He also warns us that we may be attacked again.
Security is tight in the US right now because of the election, and the FBI and CIA have pretty much discredited the idea of an attack on US soil during election day. Furthermore, he seems to be saying that he wishes to alter the election, though perhaps not this one. al-Qaeda has successfully done it in Spain, and they can very easily do it again. He doesn't endorse a candidate, but if he stays alive for the next election, I think he will. And he will have thousands of suicide bombers that want to see to it.
Anyhow, I know this was a disorganized rant. Now I want to hear your thoughts.

in response to the security here, that is highly debatable, and trust me, the Department of Homeland Security is NOT going to share your feelings. Either tonight or Saturday the terror alert is goign to go up to orange, and maybe monday, definately tuesday, it will be red. The Bush administration has a pretty good hand in them (I wonder why :rolleyes: ), and on election day, fear and terror is goign to be the best weapon Bush has.

And today's terror alert level is...

*reaches into bag of M&M's*

uh...brown?

brown for bullshit...

The terror alert level is mostly for specific threats. However, that does not mean that security isn't tightened. I'd assume, however, that it mostly be border security being tightened, anyhow.

Im sorry, I cant remember, but what did he do in the spanish elections again?

Im sorry, I cant remember, but what did he do in the spanish elections again?

What he always does: He sat on a rock.

But one particular cell of Al Qaeda arranged the bombing of a train and train station. It is credited for swinging the election away from the incumbent.

Im sorry, I cant remember, but what did he do in the spanish elections again?
3/11. He blew up trains there. If nothing happened, Jose Maria Aznar would've probably won. However, he quickly fell out of favor, and the current president won. Like him or not, there's no denying that he would've have never won had al-Qaeda not intervened.

What he always does: He sat on a rock.

But one particular cell of Al Qaeda arranged the bombing of a train and train station. It is credited for swinging the election away from the incumbent.
You're probably right that I'm giving too much credit to bin Laden. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was ordered by bin Laden's rival (and sometimes ally), Zarqawi in Iraq. The new president weakened the coalition in Iraq, and that was a PR godsend for him.

You know, Bin Laden has not been "running" al Qaeda for quite a while. Several years, in fact. What that organisation has morphed into, is something resembling an ideology, or perhaps more fittingly for our times, a brand name. Once, yes, there was a hierarchical organisation, with clear leadership, training camps, political aims, etc. Now, that cannot be done, nor is there any need. Anyone who wishes to commit their own terrorist act can simply adopt that brand name to make sure it sells well.

Does Nike make sneakers? No, it allows subcontractors several levels of subcontracting away, with whom it has little direct contact, to use its logo. Then, direct its real energies to making sure that public awareness of the logo remains high.

I do not believe that the current state of his "organisation" is a sign of weakness. He has restructured his concern to adapt to a changing market. It continues. Sure, he spouts crap every now and then, but when was the last time you saw a sneaker ad that was anything but?

No, I believe that he has actually temporarily managed to make himself more competitive, outmaneuvered his opponents, and a brand name lacking legal protection is a hell of a lot more difficult to stamp out than closing down a traditionally structured company.

You know, Bin Laden has not been "running" al Qaeda for quite a while. Several years, in fact. What that organisation has morphed into, is something resembling an ideology, or perhaps more fittingly for our times, a brand name. Once, yes, there was a hierarchical organisation, with clear leadership, training camps, political aims, etc. Now, that cannot be done, nor is there any need. Anyone who wishes to commit their own terrorist act can simply adopt that brand name to make sure it sells well.

Does Nike make sneakers? No, it allows subcontractors several levels of subcontracting away, with whom it has little direct contact, to use its logo. Then, direct its real energies to making sure that public awareness of the logo remains high.

I do not believe that the current state of his "organisation" is a sign of weakness. He has restructured his concern to adapt to a changing market. It continues. Sure, he spouts crap every now and then, but when was the last time you saw a sneaker ad that was anything but?

No, I believe that he has actually temporarily managed to make himself more competitive, outmaneuvered his opponents, and a brand name lacking legal protection is a hell of a lot more difficult to stamp out than closing down a traditionally structured company.
I'd agree with you there. al-Qaeda has morphed heavily. But the central leadership is not there. I should have said more specifically that bin Ladin himself is being defeated. In purely military terms, he, nor any other al-Qaeda bigwigs, are no longer important, as they control very little. This weakens al-Qaeda in a few ways. While they are still able to carry out attacks, they are unlikely to be able to organize anything as spectacular as 9/11, or at least not for a while. Also, originally, those attacks would be concluded with several plane hijackings in Asia, plus more suicide plane attacks in the US. However, most of that was cut out for being too complex. There's now no chance in hell that they can even dream about an attack on several continents. I really don't know if they are able to strike outside Eurasia anymore.
Anyhow, yes, they are a bit of a brand. But the analogy ends at who can join. You suggested that their idealogy is loose, but it is tight. It has to be if it wishes to survive. On the markets, brands exist because some consumer wants them. Therefore, al-Qaeda is very exclusive, but commercial brands seek inclusivity.

I would have thought that if there were a terrorist attack prior to the US election that it'd have the reverse effect to what bin Laden would want. That is, voters would swing to Bush and Bush would win in landslide because of his hard-line on terrorism and the fact that he has lead the nation through a major terrorist incident.

Anyway, that would be assuming they didn't knock off Bush -- though I'd say that wouldn't be in their capabilities, but then I guess you never know.

I would have thought that if there were a terrorist attack prior to the US election that it'd have the reverse effect to what bin Laden would want. That is, voters would swing to Bush and Bush would win in landslide because of his hard-line on terrorism and the fact that he has lead the nation through a major terrorist incident.

Anyway, that would be assuming they didn't knock off Bush -- though I'd say that wouldn't be in their capabilities, but then I guess you never know.
Considering the terrorists most likely would prefer Bush in power, this is a sad situation. I can only hope any terrorist attacks planned in the next couple days are thwarted.

I think it's a threat that he wants to help Geogre W Bush back into power, the man who has allowed Bin Laden to get away and has managed to create many terrorists with the mass deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq for a so-called 'democracy' that may or may not be achievible in Iraq.

Maybe he wants Bush back in power, after all he can use the so-called "War on Terrorism" as a war against the Islamic faith and American Imperialims, he also will be getting more support and members by stating the ammount of civilian deaths in Iraq.

In Spain the people elected the Socialist Workers Party into govt because the previous govt lied on who commented the Madrid Train Bombings, they claimed that it was Eta, which they may have done in good faith, but the people didnt believe that it was Eta and kicked out the Prime Minster and his Party.

What he always does: He sat on a rock.

But one particular cell of Al Qaeda arranged the bombing of a train and train station. It is credited for swinging the election away from the incumbent.

Actually it wasn't what cost the incumbent the election, what cost him the election was trying to make political hay out of it by blaming the "ETA" for the attack when it was so obvious it was Al Qaeda. He only had a very slight lead in the polls before the attack. Then once he tried to make it political about the ETA, that is what turned the election around into a loss for him.

Despite what others may have said that is the reason the people of Spain said they voted for the other guy.. Given also that the people of Spain were almost 90% against the war in Iraq to begin with, he was on shakey ground, only a small lead.. the attempt to blame the ETA just pushed it over the top.

Actually it wasn't what cost the incumbent the election, what cost him the election was trying to make political hay out of it by blaming the "ETA" for the attack when it was so obvious it was Al Qaeda. He only had a very slight lead in the polls before the attack. Then once he tried to make it political about the ETA, that is what turned the election around into a loss for him.

Despite what others may have said that is the reason the people of Spain said they voted for the other guy.. Given also that the people of Spain were almost 90% against the war in Iraq to begin with, he was on shakey ground, only a small lead.. the attempt to blame the ETA just pushed it over the top.

Exactly, he was on shaky ground before Iraq was invaded. People wanted him gone. The final straw was the train attack.

Terrorism did not change the goverment of spain.

The terror alert level is mostly for specific threats. However, that does not mean that security isn't tightened. I'd assume, however, that it mostly be border security being tightened, anyhow.
not that it will do any good. If there are terrorists attacking us, it will be with a sleeper cell. The tapes are pretty much a signal for them to act. I'm sure the alert was raised, but it was done quietly to avoid scaring people from the polls. If we do that, the terrorists win. I've heard some rumors of attacks being prevented already by the FBI. I know al-Qaeda will try something.

Actually it wasn't what cost the incumbent the election, what cost him the election was trying to make political hay out of it by blaming the "ETA" for the attack when it was so obvious it was Al Qaeda. He only had a very slight lead in the polls before the attack. Then once he tried to make it political about the ETA, that is what turned the election around into a loss for him.

Despite what others may have said that is the reason the people of Spain said they voted for the other guy.. Given also that the people of Spain were almost 90% against the war in Iraq to begin with, he was on shakey ground, only a small lead.. the attempt to blame the ETA just pushed it over the top.

are you sure 90% pf the population wanted him out because acording of leftist propaganda 80% of Australia wanted Howard out but he got re-alected(good) in a land slide and now has uncontested control of the senate(bad), dont let a few thousand people blocking traffic speak for the majority

Actually it wasn't what cost the incumbent the election, what cost him the election was trying to make political hay out of it by blaming the "ETA" for the attack when it was so obvious it was Al Qaeda. He only had a very slight lead in the polls before the attack. Then once he tried to make it political about the ETA, that is what turned the election around into a loss for him.

Despite what others may have said that is the reason the people of Spain said they voted for the other guy.. Given also that the people of Spain were almost 90% against the war in Iraq to begin with, he was on shakey ground, only a small lead.. the attempt to blame the ETA just pushed it over the top.
I know he had a shaky political situation before hand, but blaming the ETA doesn't seem to have an effect on voters' decisions. Investigations are often sloppy, and the Spanish electorate could have overlooked that fact if they wanted to. But it was clearly enough to make at least some Aznar voters fearful that his renewed administration would endanger Spain.

I know he had a shaky political situation before hand, but blaming the ETA doesn't seem to have an effect on voters' decisions. Investigations are often sloppy, and the Spanish electorate could have overlooked that fact if they wanted to. But it was clearly enough to make at least some Aznar voters fearful that his renewed administration would endanger Spain.
No, it was covered in great detail on the European news channels, and it was pretty obvious to anyone watching that there was a very real wave of outrage in Spain at the fact that their prime minister was being so patronising towards the electorate in an attempt to carry himself through the election on his narrow lead, intending to call the event what it was, afterwards. Nobody changed their vote out of fear, or prejudging an investigation, the undecided voters simply voted against him because it's pretty damn insensitive to media-manage the deaths of 200 people in order to make it through the election day.

No, it was covered in great detail on the European news channels, and it was pretty obvious to anyone watching that there was a very real wave of outrage in Spain at the fact that their prime minister was being so patronising towards the electorate in an attempt to carry himself through the election on his narrow lead, intending to call the event what it was, afterwards. Nobody changed their vote out of fear, or prejudging an investigation, the undecided voters simply voted against him because it's pretty damn insensitive to media-manage the deaths of 200 people in order to make it through the election day.
Well then the Spanish electorate is extremely cynical, if that's the case. But it amazes me that al-Qaeda would launch an attack so close to the election. Was this a coincidence? And didn't they get what they wanted from the new guy? Whatever the reason was for the Spanish electorate jumping ship, the attacks had something to do with it. And we can't be as naive as assume that they won't show up at another nation on election day. You know, Ukraine also has its election day coming up. Perhaps al-Qaeda will stop by, as the Ukraine has left a major footprint in the GWOT.